Digital and M8 forums dwarfs the Analogs

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

not when the choice aims to obliterate the other ,perhaps not by intent but by natural forces of the market and industry supported blindly by their digi followers.Why dont Leica for instant build an M8 geared for film and digital simultaneously.In world of the reel, its called Video assist.Thats they way to live side by side.

 

Why does Sandvik not produce a hammer that can be used as a screwdriver? Two different things. A Swisstool is practical in an emergency, but is not suitable to build a cabinet. I havent seen this obliteration, several new slide films have come to the market in the last years and there is a growing number of film users under serious photographers. Nor have all of us abandoned film altogether, but shoot both. Is losing the mass market such a bad thing?

[leica888]

I rest my case and signing off before that dude STNAMI the underworld digihead turns cocky again ;Sayonara

Edited March 9, 2009 by leica888

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest stnami]

Fair!!!... please place the prints in my letter box........do not bend ...........do not post on the http://www.

[delander †]

We keep calling it analog. We are talking about film, we never bunched all of the photographic techniques as 'analog' before digital came along. If it is film lets call it film, analog could mean anything.

 

Jeff

[JBA]

Fair!!!... please place the prints in my letter box........do not bend ...........do not post on the www.

 

They'll be in the mail as soon as your check clears.

[jaapv]

We keep calling it analog. We are talking about film, we never bunched all of the photographic techniques as 'analog' before digital came along. If it is film lets call it film, analog could mean anything.

 

Jeff

Well, strictly speaking pixels are analog, they need to have their analog signal converted to digits, and film is digital, as the grain particles are either present or not.

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes Jaap. A good argument for sticking with film and now digital

 

Jeff

[AgentX]

I rest my case and signing off before that dude STNAMI the underworld digihead turns cocky again ;Sayonara

 

What is your case, exactly?

 

That you're selfishly biased towards your own way of doing things and extraordinarily judgmental about those who choose something else?

 

That your attitude is as silly as that of a 19th-century painter who thinks photography can't be art, or a large-format photographer who thinks your vaunted M3 is a silly little toy?

 

There are people producing absolutely astounding images on digital. There are people putting crap on film. And vice-versa.

 

The end product matters, not the medium or even the artist alone.

 

I like the fact that there are people keeping film and older photographic techniques alive. I'm one of them. I don't like curmudgeons with bad attitudes.

[earleygallery]

We keep calling it analog. We are talking about film, we never bunched all of the photographic techniques as 'analog' before digital came along. If it is film lets call it film, analog could mean anything.

 

Jeff

 

Seconded! 'analog' really irritates me

[stunsworth]

Seconded! 'analog' really irritates me

 

What about 'analogue workflow'?

[SJP]

how about chemical photography.......?

 

sorry, I couldn't resist:D

[leica888]

You have all proven me right. This Digital culture have made you roughnecks,cocky, impatient and intellectually dysfunctional. You devour any attempt by any ANALOG to bend and reverse your time.Your attachments to this technology have made you a moving tzunami trying to gulp anything that reminds you of the past.And for those Digi babies who has never seen analog in its essence good luck to your new world.I have gone your path once and I know you will all find your trappings in the end.Lets talk ten years from now and tell me what happened to your valuable images.Lets talk someday when you have all lost your pockets by being cappricios suckers to the gadgetry of this digital reality.Lets all talk then when you have become BLOCK heads consumed by your own guilt why you spent all those savings just to snap up a 8K digi gadget instead of paying schooling for your kids.

 

Hey I am out of your path so lets see if you can restrain your digi selves from blurting some digi snipes and start a digi school of digi etiquette and proper digi breeding.

[jaapv]

Sorry, mate you're a complete fool. I was developing and printing film B&W and colour before you were even in nappies and I can tell you you haven't got the foggiest notion of what you are talking about. Please return to your Al-Quaida film stronghold.

[leica888]

Sorry, mate you're a complete fool. I was developing and printing film B&W and colour before you were even in nappies and I can tell you you haven't got the foggiest notion of what you are talking about. Please return to your Al-Quaida film stronghold.

 

 

sorry mate...not meant for you

[Guest stnami]

leica888 ............... nasty little bushrat . I shall excuse you as evidently English is your second language when it comes to reading, though it does become your first language when writing

Edited March 10, 2009 by stnami

[farnz]

You have all proven me right. This Digital culture have made you roughnecks,cocky, impatient and intellectually dysfunctional. ....

So, what part of "all" doesn't include all of us? Sadly, these are fatuous comments that merit no respect.

 

Pete.

[JBA]

It's a shame that this thread has devolved from a reasonably intelligent and balanced discussion to name-calling.

 

Why does the film-vs-digital debate cause such knee-jerk reactions? These are both amazing media with endless potential. What's not to love about the choices we have today?

[paga]

Never lost a digital image yet. I wish I could say the same for my old Agfa slides, which have turned a kind of yellowish-brown.... At least a digital image can be copied losslessly ad infinitum. This kind of spurious claims of superiority do film a great disservice. It is a beautiful medium, but artistic merit has nothing to do with technical specifications, especially if there is not a chance of "winning". I love driving classic cars, but I would not dream of making myself ridiculous by claiming they are better.

 

I love that answer... which is why I am quoting it here again (I have no time to read the whole thread sorry ). Although I LOVE film too...

[AgentX]

It's a shame that this thread has devolved from a reasonably intelligent and balanced discussion to name-calling.

 

Why does the film-vs-digital debate cause such knee-jerk reactions? These are both amazing media with endless potential. What's not to love about the choices we have today?

 

It was never intelligent, nor was it balanced, since it began with a bunch of prejudicial, reactionary drivel. Apparently, I'm a cocky, dysfunctional roughneck because I accept a new medium for what it's worth, instead of angrily trying to chase those damned digital kids (many of whom are former/current film users) off of my lawn.

 

Leica888 is clearly a fetishist and not a photographer.

 

It's laughable because Leica888's own M3 was designed SPECIFICALLY to be the fastest-handling machine technology could produce at the time, and was in itself a newfangled heresy to many Leica shooters of the day. The original Leica itself was meant to free people from the cumbersome task of large-format sheet film photography.

 

Leica888's attitude arbitrarily chooses a moment in photographic history, declares it the be-all-and-end-all, and dismisses those who try new things or even work differently.

 

The greatest irony is that it's digital which has sparked a greater interest in the antiquarian photographic processes which were almost a lost art. There are surely more daguerreotypes and Van Dyke prints being made now than there were 20 years ago. Sometimes digital is incorporated into these older processes to great effect.

 

Anyhow, the point is that he simply fears change and those who accept it. That's fine, but to come online and condemn those who don't is laughable, and he deserves what he gets. This isn't name calling, just the unabashed truth.

 

As for me, I'm still waiting for my Kodachromes to come back; I brought my M3 up Kilimanjaro with me last week. And I sit in a room decorated with prints I made using 19th-century techniques. I'm a real young Turk, I am.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[JBA]

It was never intelligent, nor was it balanced, since it began with a bunch of prejudicial, reactionary drivel.

 

What I meant was that it has sparked a lot of thoughtful posts on the topic, yours included.

 

Good point about digital stimulating interest in older photographic media. It's something I brought up earlier, and to Imant's objection that the film resurgence is limited, I personally know of about half a dozen people who have told me they've been inspired by my photos to take up film photography. One friend sold his Nikon digital kit and bought a Canon F1, claiming that digital had made him lazy (too bad he sold the digital, because the two processes could have informed each other in his case). Another guy from an internet forum unrelated to photography bought himself a Nikon F2 and within a month started developing his own Tri-X and scanning his negs.

 

Film is still alive and well, and I don't understand these people who see digital as a threat. Either shoot digital or don't, but whatever you do, stop screaming that the sky is falling.